Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasksAcademyAssessmentA-Class
reviewContestAwardsMembers

Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · full list News and announcements The April newsletter is now available. Editors are advised that Featured Articles promoted before 2016 are in need of review, if you had an article promoted to Featured status on or before 2016 please check and update your article before they are listed at FAR/C. Current discussions No major discussions are open at the moment Featured article candidates Turabay dynasty • John Bullock Clark • Thomas Neville (died 1460) • Battle of Poison Spring • Yugoslav submarine Mališan Featured article review USS Wisconsin (BB-64) • Edward III of England • Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs • Edward I of England Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Battle of Plum Point Bend • Henry Biard • Johann Mickl • Battle of Saipan • Fort Corcoran • T-26 • Sihanouk Trail • Battle of La Haye-du-Puits • Battle of Tinian • Henry Macandrew • Boot Monument Peer reviews Muckrach Castle • Battle of Pandu • West Point, New York • Charles the Bold • Regency of Algiers Good article nominees Stephen Badlam • Reza Qoli Mirza Afshar • Nazran uprising • Abu'l-Fath Khan Javanshir • Battle of Ekiokpagha • Iga ikki • Kōka ikki • Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1401–1403) • William Henry Harrison Seeley • Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • Khalji Revolution • Travis King • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • Antoine Hamilton • George II of Greece • Roswell incident • Podgorica Assembly • Adolf von Rhemen • Masopha • Sam Bahadur (film) • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Mohammad Shah Qajar • HMS Renard (1909) • Battle of Meligalas • Blohm & Voss BV 40 • Japanese destroyer Take (1944) • Zeppelin-Staaken L • Gubir shootdown • The Defence of Duffer's Drift • Chestertown Armory • Mariano R. Vázquez • Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk • Gotha WD.7 Good article reassessments Crusading movement • Golubac Fortress Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (147,151) • only work on referencing and citation (43,157) • work on coverage and accuracy (122,243) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,594) • work on structure (31,771) • only work on structure (360) • work on grammar (8,185) • only work on grammar (45) • work on supporting materials (32,693) • only work on supporting materials (1,333) • assessment (9) • assessment as lists (118) • project tags fixed (8) • assessment checklists added (10) • assessment checklists completed (29) • task forces added (306) • attention to task force coverage (680)

Nominations for military historian of the year for 2013 now open!

Military historian of the year 2013

As we find ourselves fast approaching the end of the year, it is time for us to pause to nominate the editors who we believe have made a real difference to the project. As part of the first step to determining this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate those that they feel deserve a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months. The nomination process will last until 23:59 (GMT) on 21 December. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of seven days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top three editors will be awarded the Gold, Silver and Bronze Wiki respectively; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.

Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format (20 words max).

• [user name]: [reason] ~~~~

Please nominate editors below this line. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalised. Thanks, and good luck! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Nominations

• Anotherclown (talk · contribs) While Anotherclown probably deserves to be nominated for the strength of his work on the Battle of Long Tan article alone, he is another hugely prolific contributor and played a key role in getting three articles to GA status. He has also performed sterling work as a coordinator and makes a huge contribution to tagging, assessing and maintaining articles. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) AustralianRupert's two successful A-class nominations, five successful GANs and many articles developed to B-class standard are only the tip of the iceberg of his contributions. As well as serving as a coordinator, he does a huge amount of "wiki-gnoming" style work to assess, improve and maintain articles and contributed one of the best op-eds to have been published in the Bugle. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Cdtew (talk · contribs) During 2013 Cdtew has developed eight articles on North Carolina's role in the American Revolutionary War to GA or higher status, representing a huge improvement to Wikipedia's coverage of the topic. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Cliftonian: for continued efforts to improve Rhodesian military history coverage, including four FAs and several GAs this year. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Dank: for his active role in four FAs this year, as well as his contribution to other quality articles though constant reviewing/copyediting. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Georgejdorner (talk · contribs) for his dedication and work on World War I flying aces. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Hawkeye7: for dedication to improving coverage related to the atomic bomb and other subjects, including 10 FAs this year, and as the inaugural recipient of the ACM with Diamonds. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Ian Rose (talk · contribs): a major content contributor, tireless co-ord and diligent reviewer. Achievements this year include 8 x FAs, 6 x As, and 15 x GAs. Strong reviewer at GA and A and goes the extra mile to ensure accuracy. Other good works include role as FA delegate and on the Bugle. Anotherclown (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Jim Sweeney (talk · contribs): for long term contributions. Jim has over 98,000 edits, including 34 x GAs, 4 x As, 2 x FAs and a Good topic (not to mention his ongoing efforts to assist reviewing – 112 x GA reviews and many A class reviews). Anotherclown (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keith-264 (talk · contribs): for his prolific contributions to World War I articles. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Mongo (talk · contribs): for pushing for and getting the Fort Yellowstone article up to FA status. --Mike Cline (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• Nick-D (talk · contribs): for continuing sterling work as a content contributor and co-ord. Has encouraged and mentored many editors as they got started and helped established editors maintain focus. His achievements this year include at least 5 x FAs, 1 x A, and 2 x GAs. Not to mention work with the Bugle. Anotherclown (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs): for his work on World War II articles and work as a reviewer. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs): What can I say? The guy's a machine on FAs, As and GAs and always gives a great review as well. It's largely down to him that MILHIST now boasts the largest featured topic ever, "Battlecruisers of the world". —Cliftonian (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the nomination, but as a previous winner, I must decline the nomination.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
    • A gentleman as well. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Tomobe03 (talk · contribs): for his work on Balkans-related articles and GA reviews. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Wild Wolf (talk · contribs): for his continuing work on ACW articles. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
• Zawed (talk · contribs) Another editor working on an under-represented topic, Zawed has made a major contribution to Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealand military history by developing five articles on the topic to A-class status and 10 to GA. Zawed is also among the most regular assessors of articles nominated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nominations for military history newcomer of the year for 2013 now open!

Military history newcomer of the year 2013

As we find ourselves fast approaching the end of the year, it is time for us to pause to nominate the editors who we believe have made a real difference to the project. This year, in addition to the annual "Military Historian of the Year" award, all Milhist editors are invited to nominate a promising newcomer that they feel deserves a nod of appreciation for their hard work over the past 12 months. The award is open to any editor who has become active in military history articles in the last 12 months.

Like the Military Historian of the Year, the nomination process will last until 23:59 (GMT) on 21 December. After that a new thread will be created and a voting period of seven days will commence during which editors will be able to cast their vote for up to three of the nominees. At the end of this period, the top editor will be awarded the Gold Wiki; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.

Editors are asked to keep their nominations to 10 editors or less and nominations should be made in the following format (20 words max).

• [user name]: [reason] ~~~~

Please nominate editors below this line. Self nominations are frowned upon. Please do not vote until the nominations have been finalised. Thanks, and good luck! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Nominations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Jimfbleak (talk · contribs): although an old and wise hand around wiki, he is a very recent member of the project. Recently took his first MILHIST article (that I’m aware of) – Melbourne Castle – to FA. Anotherclown (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • He has also nommed these at FAC: Titchwell Marsh, North Norfolk Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest, and Cley Marshes. - Dank (push to talk) 16:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Khanate General (previously Typing General): Although only active since mid-year, Khanate is already making his presence felt as an editor of quality Central and East Asian military history articles, including a Featured List and several GAs, and as a reviewer. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Omnedon (talk · contribs): generally more focused on geography and local history, he this year brought the important article Jefferson Davis up to FA standard. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
• Ssriram mt: An experienced editor on wider Indian topics, Ssriram has made a welcome appearance to editing articles within the MilHist area, and has been recently improving article on a number of Indian forts, including getting Fort Dansborg up to GA standard. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

British Library free use images

A colleague has brought to my attention this collection of 1M free use images taken from old books

http://www.flickr.com/photos/britishlibrary

They may be well known to some editors - others like me may not have seen them before.

They are tagged but not it seems indexed. A quick look showed there are military images in there, including useful maps. If anyone has the time, it might reveal some hidden treasures.Monstrelet (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Someone has very kindly listed all the books that have been scanned to create this collection at the seven pages starting at commons:Commons:British Library/Mechanical Curator collection/Full list of books 1. NtheP (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Simultaneous reviews

What is the preferred procedure if I would like to simultaneously list an article for WP:PR and MILHIST A-Class review? Also what is policy regarding two simultaneous A-Class reviews?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I think it is generally accepted that if an article would benefit from PR, it should wait until the PR is finished and those issues addressed before nominating it for ACR. To my knowledge there are no restrictions on having two articles at ACR at the same time. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I've had up to three at a time for ACR, but it would be most helpful if you would do a review of other ACRs for each one you have up yourself. I've noticed things move a lot faster that way. —Ed!^(talk) 18:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

2013 South Sudanese coup d'état attempt

Just so younz know, there be chatter on the talk page about the title and whether or not it should be changed since at the moment this is shaping up to be more of a civil war than a coup d ta. Input over there may prove useful, all the more so since the article be linked from the main page at the moment. 24.92.109.251 (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

GA backlog

Gday all. Bit of a backlog building up at GA at the moment, currently up to 45 articles. If anyone is looking for a way to contribute doing a review would be quite helpful. Pls see Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#Warfare. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 09:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

If someone could review my German occupation of Belgium during World War II (the oldest article so far unreviewed) then I'd be extremely grateful! Brigade Piron (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Howdy. As this request has been sitting since 19 Sep 13 without any interest I will take this on. That said I will state from the outset that I am out of my depth as this topic is well outside my lane. I will do my best but will also ask a few other editors for their opinions to (hopefully) ensure a thorough review is completed of this important topic. As such if anyone is interested pls go to the review page and add your cmts. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Been some progress here with the backlog now down to 40 GA reviews (of which) 27 are still awaiting a reviewer. That said still plenty of scope for people to pitch in if you are interested. Anotherclown (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

WW1 Reparations

Hi, I am working on the World War I reparations article. I am currently expanding the information on the Bulgarian reparation demands and payments. Thus far, I have established the following:

1 - Treaty of Neuilly established that Bulgaria had to pay 2.250 billion Gold francs in reparations.(Treaty of Neuilly, Article 121)
2 - In 1923, the Bulgarian reparation sum was "revised downwards" to 550 million gold francs "plus a lump sum payment of 25 million francs for occupation costs".(Marks, Myths of Reparations, pp. 234-5)
3 - Between the treaty signing and April 1922, 173 million gold francs were paid (1)
4 - Between 1925 and 1929, Bulgaria paid a further 41 million gold francs, before reparations were abandoned at the Lausanne conference of 1932.(2)

Can anyone provide additional information (including sources)? Such as:

1 - Do the above figures represent total Bulgarian reparation payment, and if not what was it?
2 - Did an event, such as the Dawes Plan for example, occur to revise down the Bulgarian reparation payments?

Thanks for any help provided.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Number 4: Between 1925 and 1925? Possibly mid to late 1920s? Adamdaley (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Typo on my part, it should read 1925-1929. I have amended the text above.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Repeat reviews

If an article passes A-class review, can it be put up for review again if it changes enough or if the review was far enough in the past.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Multiple Peer Reviews are OK as long as the rules at WP:PR are followed. That's an overall Wikipedia review vs. a Wikipedia Project review like MilHist's A-class review. I'm not sure if a peer review will help an article much that passed A-class review. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering about multiple A-class reviews. Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell) was 15,283 characters of readable prose when it passed ACR, and it is now 27,190 characters of readable prose. Is it eligible for a repeat MILHIST ACR?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

As noted at WP:MHR the only reason A-class articles are normally re-reviewed is when there is a concern that they no longer meet the criteria. Is that the case here? The article looks to be in good shape from a quick skim, and I see that you've been working on improving it. Nick-D (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes I hope I am improving it. I am gearing up for WP:FAC and WP:GTC runs, which is why it is currently awaiting feedback at WP:PR. Hopefully, this can be a GT lead article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What Nick says. Tony, if your main interest in another review is as a pre-FAC check, I think PR would be the way to go in this case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. I misunderstood the original question to be about a 2nd peer review after an article passes A-class review. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Voting for military historian of the year for 2013 now open!

Military historian of the year 2013

Nominations for this year's "Military Historian of the Year" award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour. As with the awards for previous years, the second and third placed editors and all the runners up will also be acknowledged.

The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided below. Voting can be done by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~)

All editors are welcome to vote, but are asked to vote for a maximum of three candidates. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 5 January 2014.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, Ian Rose (talk) 10:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Candidates and voting

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Anotherclown (talk · contribs) While Anotherclown probably deserves to be nominated for the strength of his work on the Battle of Long Tan article alone, he is another hugely prolific contributor and played a key role in getting three articles to GA status. He has also performed sterling work as a coordinator and makes a huge contribution to tagging, assessing and maintaining articles. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Tomobe03 (talk) 11:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
3. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 12:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
4. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) AustralianRupert's two successful A-class nominations, five successful GANs and many articles developed to B-class standard are only the tip of the iceberg of his contributions. As well as serving as a coordinator, he does a huge amount of "wiki-gnoming" style work to assess, improve and maintain articles and contributed one of the best op-eds to have been published in the Bugle. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

1. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
3. User:Hchc2009 Hchc2009 (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
4. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
5. Euryalus (talk) 06:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
6. Nick-D (talk) 06:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
7. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
8. Tomobe03 (talk) 11:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
9. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 12:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
10. Buistr (talk) 08:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
11. Zawed (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
12. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
13. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 22:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
14. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Cdtew (talk · contribs) During 2013 Cdtew has developed eight articles on North Carolina's role in the American Revolutionary War to GA or higher status, representing a huge improvement to Wikipedia's coverage of the topic. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Hamish59 (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. User:Hchc2009 Hchc2009 (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
3. Nick-D (talk) 06:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
4. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Cliftonian: for continued efforts to improve Rhodesian military history coverage, including four FAs and several GAs this year. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

1. As nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Cdtew (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• Dank: for his active role in four FAs this year, as well as his contribution to other quality articles though constant reviewing/copyediting. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

1. As nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Cdtew (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
3. User:Hchc2009 Hchc2009 (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• Georgejdorner (talk · contribs) for his dedication and work on World War I flying aces. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

1. (as nominator) MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hawkeye7: for dedication to improving coverage related to the atomic bomb and other subjects, including 10 FAs this year, and as the inaugural recipient of the ACM with Diamonds. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

1. As nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. 10 FAs this year! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
3. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
4. Parsecboy (talk) 12:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Ian Rose (talk · contribs): a major content contributor, tireless co-ord and diligent reviewer. Achievements this year include 8 x FAs, 6 x As, and 15 x GAs. Strong reviewer at GA and A and goes the extra mile to ensure accuracy. Other good works include role as FA delegate and on the Bugle. Anotherclown (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Cdtew (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Euryalus (talk) 06:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
3. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
4. Anotherclown (talk) 10:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
5. Parsecboy (talk) 12:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
6. Zawed (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Jim Sweeney (talk · contribs): for long term contributions. Jim has over 98,000 edits, including 34 x GAs, 4 x As, 2 x FAs and a Good topic (not to mention his ongoing efforts to assist reviewing – 112 x GA reviews and many A class reviews). Anotherclown (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Hamish59 (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Anotherclown (talk) 10:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
3. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 22:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keith-264 (talk · contribs): for his prolific contributions to World War I articles. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Hamish59 (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. (as nom) AustralianRupert (talk) 04:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• MONGO (talk · contribs): for pushing for and getting the Fort Yellowstone article up to FA status. --Mike Cline (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Nick-D (talk · contribs): for continuing sterling work as a content contributor and co-ord. Has encouraged and mentored many editors as they got started and helped established editors maintain focus. His achievements this year include at least 5 x FAs, 1 x A, and 2 x GAs. Not to mention work with the Bugle. Anotherclown (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Euryalus (talk) 06:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
3. Anotherclown (talk) 10:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
4. Parsecboy (talk) 12:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
5. Zawed (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
6. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs): for his work on World War II articles and work as a reviewer. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

1. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. (as nom) AustralianRupert (talk) 04:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
3. Tomobe03 (talk) 11:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
4. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Tomobe03 (talk · contribs): for his work on Balkans-related articles and GA reviews. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

1. (as nom) AustralianRupert (talk) 04:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Quality, balanced work on 1990's Balkans articles is hard to achieve, Has made real advances in WP's coverage in this area. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Wild Wolf (talk · contribs): for his continuing work on ACW articles. 64.6.124.31 (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 22:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Zawed (talk · contribs) Another editor working on an under-represented topic, Zawed has made a major contribution to Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealand military history by developing five articles on the topic to A-class status and 10 to GA. Zawed is also among the most regular assessors of articles nominated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Nick-D (talk) 06:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
2. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 12:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
3. Cuprum17 (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Voting for military history newcomer of the year for 2013 now open!

Military history newcomer of the year 2013

Nominations for this year's Military History Newcomer of the Year award have now closed, and it is time to vote for who you think deserves this honour.

The nominees for this award and the statements given in support of these nominations are provided below. Voting can be done by adding a hash sign (#) followed by the four tildes (~~~~)

All editors are welcome to vote, but are asked to only vote for only one candidate. The winner will be the editor who receives the most 'support' votes by the time voting closes at 23:59 (GMT) on 5 January 2014. The top editor will be awarded the Gold Wiki; all other nominees will receive the WikiProject Barnstar.

Good luck to all the nominees! For the coordinators, Ian Rose (talk) 10:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Candidates and voting

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Jimfbleak (talk · contribs): although an old and wise hand around wiki, he is a very recent member of the project. Recently took his first MILHIST article (that I’m aware of) – Melbourne Castle – to FA. Anotherclown (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC) He has also nommed these at FAC: Titchwell Marsh, North Norfolk Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest, and Cley Marshes. - Dank (push to talk) 16:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Parsecboy (talk) 12:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Khanate General (previously Typing General): Although only active since mid-year, Khanate is already making his presence felt as an editor of quality Central and East Asian military history articles, including a Featured List and several GAs, and as a reviewer. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Hamish59 (talk) 13:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. As nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
3. Even though I'm not nominated, I believe all the nominated this year deserve a vote. Season's greetings! Arius1998 (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
4. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
5. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
6. Anotherclown (talk) 10:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
7. Tomobe03 (talk) 11:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
8. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 12:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
9. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Omnedon (talk · contribs): generally more focused on geography and local history, he this year brought the important article Jefferson Davis up to FA standard. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

1. (as nominator) —Cliftonian (talk) 10:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
2. Cdtew (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
3. Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Ssriram mt: An experienced editor on wider Indian topics, Ssriram has made a welcome appearance to editing articles within the MilHist area, and has been recently improving article on a number of Indian forts, including getting Fort Dansborg up to GA standard. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Hchc2009 Hchc2009 (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Flow news update

Greetings. First off, thank you for greatly assisting with the feedback and suggestions on Flow's development - the team can only build it as well as our support enables them to.

For this page, one of the most active and complex WikiProjects around, the Flow team has decided that it makes more sense to hold off for a few more development sprints (2-week time chunks), until certain features have been further developed (such as a more condensed view for navigating many long conversations) and new features (such as closing and summarizing topics) added. We'll be starting off with the other 3 smaller WikiProjects that volunteered - Video games, Hampshire, and Breakfast - and aiming to launch in mid-January if you'd like to follow the progress of Flow there.

Please continue to test out the mw:Talk:Sandbox, and leave feedback and suggestions at mw:Talk:Flow (or here at WT:Flow and WT:Flow/Design FAQ) - the more we/you speak up with good insights, the faster it will turn into the discussion&collaboration system we've always wanted and needed. Thanks again. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

HMS Cabinet

Does anyone know anything about the loss of HMS Cabinet in 1827/8? Mjroots (talk) 08:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

@Mjroots: That seems like an odd name for a (presumably British) ship. Do we have any information about its history other than the 1827/8 date? Kirill ^[talk] 06:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

@Kirill Lokshin: - There was a Court Martial following her loss. It was reported in a Dublin newspaper and repeated in an Australian newspaper in late 1828. See here.

@Mjroots: Looking at that article, I'm going to hazard a guess that we're not actually dealing with a real ship here, but rather with a metaphor for some sort of political shakeup within the Wellington ministry. Note that the names of the ships and officers suggest some connection to the political situation in the UK at the time (e.g. "Admiral Sir George King" → George IV of the United Kingdom, "Vice Admiral Sir William Henry" → William IV of the United Kingdom, "Capt. Wellesley" → Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, etc.). Having said that, I'm not sure what specific event this might be in reference to; perhaps someone with more knowledge of British politics of the period might have more insight? Kirill ^[talk] 13:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

@Kirill Lokshin: - Ah, Irish politics then. Thanks. Mjroots (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It's probably a reference to F. J. Robinson, 1st Viscount Goderich, who became Prime Minister in 1827, but couldn't keep the coalition government under him together, and resigned 144 days later in January, 1828, when George IV asked Wellington to form a Tory government. According to the article on Goderich, it sounds like he was a total disaster of a PM, hence why they probably satirized it as a "court martial" for mishandling the ship of state. Cdtew (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It continues to amaze me the knowledge I find in editors here, it really does... :D TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:MILMOS#FLAGS and WWI flags of Commonwealth dominions

There is debate at Arthur Currie relating to the employment of "British Empire" (and associated flag) vs. Canada (and associated flag) for topics that relate to individuals from the dominions prior to the Treaty of Westminster. Looking for verification that the general consensus is to leave dominion flags and allegiance where it's clearly determinable. I know it's a long-standing approach but looking for confirmation.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• The issue now involves a long list of articles editing by User:Bardrick in the last two days. including: John George Pattison, Charles Merritt, John Hamilton Roberts, John Hamilton Roberts, Bernard Freyberg, 1st Baron Freyberg, Howard Kippenberger,John Monash, Peter Walls, Quintin Brand, Keith Park, Adolph Malan, Billy Bishop, Leslie Powell.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• This is partly my dearly-held belief, but WP:INFOBOXFLAG trumps MILMOS, and states as follows: "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many. Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. Flag icons are visually distracting in infoboxes and lead to unnecessary disputes when over-used."

For those reasons, I am of the strong opinion that no flags at all should appear in these sorts of biographies, as they are leading to exactly the sort of "unnecessary disputes" the MOS talks about. Unless the flags convey additional information not already conveyed by the text, they should be avoided. Cdtew (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree fully with Cdtew re. the flags. I've also noticed Bardrick making these edits and have reverted "British Empire" in the case of an article I largely wrote on the basis that the subject only served in British units for a small proportion of his service life, and even then the allegiance should have been considered to the UK, which has long been the MilHist convention, not the "British Empire". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted changes to Kippenberger and Monash articles while this topic is under discussion. For what is worth, I think both would have identified as New Zealander and Australian respectively. Zawed (talk) 10:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This involves more than just biography arrticles, several battle of articles also use flags, and some have been involved in an edit war over British Empire - Australia etc. I would vote for their removal if it comes to getting a consensus. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring the flag topic for a brief moment, can we agree that th allegiance field should be the associated dominion and not "British Empire".Labattblueboy (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

No not really, that would depend on what period in time you were talking about. During and before WWI most British Empire subjects would say their allegiance was to that. While after they might say Australia, Canada etc So unless you no for certain that Joe Bloggs said his allegiance was to Nova Scotia any thing else is just guesswork or synth. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's work with WWI and individuals that were born and died in a dominion (Canada, Australia, South Africa, etc) and whose military service is related specifically to that dominion (ANZAC for Australian, CEF for Canada), as is the case for all those listed above.Labattblueboy (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Nobody would have said "British Empire" in 1914. People did not identify themselves that way. Australia was an independent country. Debate centred around what obligation, if any, Australia owed to the Empire. Australians tended to think of the subjects of the British Empire as being non-white peoples in the Imperial colonies. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC) And it is not synth, I can easily back it up. Hawkeye7 (talk)

a different situation in Canada perhaps? While Quebec may not have identified with France or Britain and the army was probably unwelcoming to Francophones, the Canadian Corps had a high percentage of British-born volunteers. A source says that it is not until the end of the war that Canadian-born make up over 50%. That may interpreted two ways: as Canadian-born not wanting to volunteer, or that Canada had a very large number of British-born citizens. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The corresponding figure in Australia was about 27% British-born in 1914, although Bean notes that many of them had lived in Australia since they were children. As in Canada, the proportion of British-born fell as the war went on, and the recruits became younger. I would not say that the Canadian Army was "unwelcoming" to francophones, who served with distinction in the francophone 22eme Battalion, although you are too right about their not identifying with France or Britain. Trouble really only began with the introduction of conscription, which opened up Canada's internal divisions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that a legalistic criterion like the Statute of Westminster is better than ahistorical projections, which wouldn't have been accepted by the people who were there. Oh and Australia wasn't independent in 1914 (or 1918).Keith-264 (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I always prefer the British Empire designation because it makes it clear to the un-informed reader that this is talking pre-independence. I think it also depends on the war - it's a lot easier to justify the "British Empire" designation for Australia (say) in WWI than it would be for Korea...Brigade Piron (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

PS I was surprised to learn that flags shouldn't be in the infobox.Keith-264 (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Australia was independent in 1914, having been granted Dominion status in 1907. The "British Empire" had no legal or constitutional existence. When Bridges was given command of the AIF in 1914, he was equipped with a charter that gave him the right to refuse any order given by the British authorities and to consult with the government in Australia on any matter. I don't see haw this constitutes allegiance to Britain. (The commanders in Korea were given a copy of this charter.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Dominion doesn't mean independent. This is a matter of fact not opinion, as is British empire rather than British Empire.Keith-264 (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, it does. The dominions signed the Treaty of Versailles as separate nations. We can argue about the gradual process by which the dominions became more and more independent; but when it comes to allegiance, the choice is between "Britain" and "Australia". Nobody in either country would said "British Empire". Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Independence is not more or less, it is or it isn't. Notice also "British empire" (sic) is a form of verbal shorthand not a title. Australia eventually became a nominally sovereign state after 1918 (of course it's really a US imperial colony same as Britain).Keith-264 (talk) 09:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It is more complicated than that. From 1901 Australia was self-governing, had its own Army, and control of its own foreign affairs. The British parliament still had the right to enact laws for Australia, but had agreed not to. So it met all the criteria that most people consider independent. In 1907, the conferring of dominion status made Australia independent in name as well as in fact, and the British parliament passed a law removing its right to legislate for Australia, which it had never exercised. Australia signed the treaty of Versailles in 1919 as an independent nation, and this was followed by the Balfour Declaration of 1926, which recognised that Britain and Australia were equal in status, and the 1931 statute of Westminster, which allowed the Australian parliament to make laws outside its territories. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

All quite valid points in my opinion, and ones which myself and others have raised when this issue has been discussed previously. That said I'm not altogether convinced that this discussion warrants serious attention (and comments like "of course it's really a US imperial colony same as Britain" confirm that in my mind). Anotherclown (talk) 12:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It's simple, when did Australia become a sovereign state? There must be an objective definition and surely that is the moment when the British state ceased to have a role, such as legislation, legal appeals to the Privy Council etc. Denying the realpolitikal subservience of states to the US empire seems a bit Pooterish too; I thought that the cultural cringe was obsolete. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion#Australia 14:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC) Four colonies of Australia had enjoyed responsible government since 1856: New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia.[24] Queensland had responsible government soon after its founding in 1859[25] but because of financial dependence on Britain, Western Australia became the last Australian colony to attain self-government in 1890.[26] During the 1890s, the colonies voted to unite and in 1901 they were federated under the British Crown as the Commonwealth of Australia by the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act. The Constitution of Australia had been drafted in Australia and approved by popular consent. Thus Australia is one of the few countries established by a popular vote.[27] Under the second Balfour Declaration, the federal government was regarded as coequal with (and not subordinate to) the British and other Dominion governments and this was given formal legal recognition in 1942 (when the Statute of Westminster was retroactively adopted to the commencement of the Second World War 1939).14:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC) Keith-264 (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Appeals to the privy council were abolished in 1986. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not see why this is relevant. If you asked Australians of the great War period about their allegiance, the answer would have been "Australia". We have always used this for the allegiance. The United States was not independent until 1783 but the biographies of the American Revolutionary War are marked "United States" not "British Empire". Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It just took us eight years to get the British Army to leave ;) Bwmoll3 (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Name of empire

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could the MILHIST discussion revisit its decision [1] on the basis that –

a) the common name which is relevant to the choice of article name Wikipedia:Article name#Use commonly recognizable names, should not be used when naming an historical state, country or government, and

b) there is nothing in the original quote relied on to change the name of an empire, to sustain such action. The exact wording reads:

"[m]any 'Western' history books (including virtually all histories of the Gallipoli campaign) use the terms 'Ottomans' and 'Turks', and 'Ottoman Empire' and 'Turkey' as if they are interchangeable. The words may be synonymous to English-speaking peoples, but in fact they have quite specific historical meanings." [Fewster, Basarin, Basarin pp. xi-ii] --Rskp (talk) 03:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Well part "a" of your argument already fails, if you look at the list at WP:UCN you'll see "United Kingdom (not: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)", which accounts for all 3 in terms of being referred to as a historical state, country and government.

In this case it could be argued that "Turkey" is not a common name, it is not a shortened term or popular term socially, it is an alternative term, between "Turkey" and "Ottoman".

By "historical meanings" do you mean "Turkey" meant something different then to now? I would suggest the contemporary term is more important here, per WP:MODERN. You're writing for a 21st century audience, doesn't matter if "Turkish" was once offensive, it isn't now and is widely more known than "Ottoman" without the need for readers unfamiliar with the Ottomans to have to do some background reading, because the word "Turkish" describes the nation who governed the Ottomans, the word "Ottoman" is broad and ambiguous.

I would also suggest that it might be too soon for this debate. The consensus was just a few weeks ago.. opinions don't change that fast on Wiki, and you haven't really presented a strong opening argument above to convince anyone, I doubt, to sway their views so soon. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 03:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

No, let's not revisit this issue yet again: this was resolved only a few weeks ago, and there's no reason to think that consensus will have changed over such a short period. Rskp, this is unhelpful conduct in a field in which you have recently been sanctioned by ArbCom, and you really need to move on - it clearly goes against the spirit of the first sanction which has been imposed on you in which you have been banned from changing 'Turkey' or 'Turkish' to 'Ottoman' in any article. I will be asking an uninvolved admin to intervene in this matter if it continues. Nick-D (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the safest option would be to close this discussion as premature, and RoslynSKP should probably not return to it for at least a few months to give time for the Arbcom sanction to prove its effectiveness. The WWI centenary starts from next June 28, if we go by the assassination of Ferdinand, I think that once the focus on WWI becomes more dedicated, it would better to discuss this matter in detail then when there are more editors around looking at the topic objectively. Opinions? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 04:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I've asked uninvolved coordinators to consider closing this thread. Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a good plan, to revisit this issue when more editors are around, who might be able to focus on the topic. --Rskp (talk) 04:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

That's not what I meant at all: please drop this issue permanently. Re-raising issues where there is a clear consensus and which relate to an active ArbCom sanction is not a good idea. Nick-D (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I disagree, I think an open discussion on the WWI centenary would produce more fruition than attempting to subjugate the matter completely, which Arbcom did not insist on, and which you as a coord should not be requesting either. It is 6 months to June, I don't see how that's an unfair period to let the waters settle. If there is a bias in the "Ottoman" matter there is little to be gained by the same old-hands debating it again, come next June I hope we will have a fresh intake of editors specifically interested in the WWI anniversaries who will help shed further light on the matter. Given than Wikipedia is a collaborative project, I consider than an unbiased solution compared with "drop this issue permanently" which is a heavy-handed and obtuse approach given that we never use the word "permanently" against editors on Wiki, unless they're banned, rather we use "indefinitely". Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 04:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James Hogun/archive1

Despite my reduced man-hours on Wikipedia, I'm attempting to get the fifth and final article in the series on NC's American Revolutionary War generals to featured status. I would sincerely appreciate any reviews, positive or negative, that you may be willing to contribute. Cdtew (talk) 04:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I have had this on my list to review (recusing myself from FAC coord duties) and should get to it before long. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Voting for the military historian and newcomer of the year awardsextended by one week

Per this discussion on the coordinators' discussion board, the deadline for voting in the military historian of the year and military history newcomer of the year awards has been extended for a week to encourage additional participation. Voting will now close at 23:59 (GMT) on 5 January 2014. For the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Iraq War article on wasteful spending

• Pany, Thomas. "Irak: Der Wiederaufbau-Pfusch." Heise. 6 March 2013.

It's in German but it can be used to improve articles on here. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

United States World War I contributions

Some articles that have been completely revised or created as a small contribution to the World War I centenary

• List of American Aero Squadrons

All AEF squadrons (combat/non-combat) have been researched and listed

• List of World War I flying aces from the United States

Also all of the men have had their individual articles either created or expanded/edited

• List of Training Section Air Service airfields

All airfields in the United States have had articles created, and locations noted in the list article

• Organization of the Air Service of the American Expeditionary Force

Also, all of the United States combat squadrons of the AEF have been revised or created from scratch.

• List of Air Service American Expeditionary Force aerodromes in France

Mostly complete, still working on some airfield articles

Am planning on writing articles about the observation balloon squadrons in 2014.

Regards, Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

New articles list

The Milhist new articles list has not been working for some time. Can anyone fix it? Buckshot06 (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation links

Once again, my friends, we face our old adversary - a rising tide of disambiguation links. Any help would be appreciated in wiping out this backlog of heavily linked disambiguation pages under the ambit of military history:

• Battle of Niš - 49 links
• Battle of Chattanooga - 12 links
• Battle of Gaza - 12 links
• Battle of Newbury - 12 links
• Battle of Winchester - 12 links
• Battle of Yorktown - 12 links
• Battle of Ypres - 12 links -- Done
• Battle of the Philippines - 11 links
• Battle of Algiers - 11 links
• Battle of Mogadishu - 11 links
• Battle of Mesilla - 10 links -- Done
• Battle of Kharkov - 10 links
• Battle of Hill 60 - 9 links -  Partly done - re List of The Unit episodes - seems to be some sort of template but I can't access it to edit
• Battle of Târgu Frumos - 9 links
• Battle of El Alamein - 9 links
• Battle of Doiran - 8 links
• Battle of Rabaul - 8 links --  Done by someone else
• Battle of Arras - 8 links
• Battle of Beledweyne - 7 links --  Done
• Battle of Cambrai - 7 links --  Done
• Battle of Changsha - 7 links
• Battle of Farmington - 7 links
• Battle of Lwów - 7 links -- Done
• Battle of Saltville - 7 links
• Battle of Vella Lavella - 7 links -  Partly done - re VMA-124, is either the Battle of Vella Gulf or Land Battle of Vella Lavella.
• Battle of Warsaw - 7 links
• Battle of the Aisne - 7 links -  Partly done - re Edgar Feuchtinger, can't identify which/how many Battles of the Aisne.
• Battle of Bapaume - 7 links -- Done by someone else
• Battle of Cape Finisterre - 6 links ---  Done
• Battle of Champagne - 6 links
• Battle of Guam - 6 links
• Battle of Mantinea - 6 links -- Done
• Battle of Nördlingen - 6 links -- Done
• Battle of St. Quentin - 6 links
• Battle of Wissembourg - 6 links
• Battle of the Weldon Railroad - 6 links
• Battle of Abukir - 5 links -- Done
• Battle of Albert - 5 links -- Done
• Battle of Coronea - 5 links -- Done
• Battle of Delhi - 5 links -- Done
• Battle of Grozny - 5 links -- Done
• Battle of Panipat - 5 links -- Done
• Battle of Placentia - 5 links -- Done
• Battle of San Juan - 5 links -- Done
• Battle of Ushant - 5 links -- Done

Cheers! bd2412 T 23:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year

We're into the last 12 hours of 2013 down under so if I can't check in again before 2014, Happy New Year all, great working with you, and look forward to seeing you again after we all recover from our respective parties... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too. Euryalus (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year to all. We are a marvelously diverse group from around the world; from different cultures tied together by a common interest. I hope that every one of you is happy, healthy and enjoys success in 2014. Bwmoll3 (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year everybody. Here's to another fine year in 2014. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year! Arius1998 (talk) 03:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Blwyddyn newydd dda! --Molestash (talk) 04:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

69th Infantry Regiment (New York) and 69th Infantry Regiment (United States)

Is it just me, or are these articles covering the exact same topic? bd2412 T 15:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes and no. In theory there could be two articles, but one should deal with the 69th New York as it existed during the Civil War and the other (69th Infantry Regiment) would take on the history after that when the National Guard was organized. Alas, it rarely seems to be that easy, though. Intothatdarkness 15:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a tremendous amount of duplication between these, which really should be avoided. I would suggest that either they be merged, or the "United States" article be reduced to material that is not about the New York regiment. bd2412 T 16:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, and it's something you'll find with regiments that existed during the Civil War and then again later as part of the National Guard (or re-created for lineage purposes by the whole Brigade Combat Team thing). Technically, I think it's better to have a solo article for the Civil War 69th NY (it was a pretty distinguished regiment) and then something separate for the later unit. There are technical differences between a state Volunteer regiment and a National Guard unit, and I think it's important to make that distinction clear. Intothatdarkness 16:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Just one point - every other U.S. Army infantry regiment is at XXth Infantry Regiment (United States) (apart from whatever the 3rd Old Guard is at, at the moment, due to persistent claims there) so the current regiment should be at that article title. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

And that's why I tend to think two articles is the way to go. One for the actual CW 69th New York and another for the National Guard descendant (with history picking up around WW 1 most likely). When doing lineage, the Army has a really bad tendency to cobble things on that look good on paper but don't really work well from a historical standpoint. This is especially true when they create lineages for National Guard units. Intothatdarkness 22:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Advise you speak with @Adamdaley: I believe he is assessing all the regiment articles for the Civil War and his sources may help here. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 04:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The only source for the above articles, is the Dyer Compendiums. I have no further information such as books or files for New York. As Intothat said the first article should be about the regiment during the American Civil War. Adamdaley (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

There should be some stuff out there on the 69th NY, or at least the Irish Brigade (the ACW isn't one of my main focus areas, so I don't have any sources close to hand). I've always felt it's best in these cases to have separate articles: one for the actual state Volunteer unit and another for any "legacy" National Guard unit. Intothatdarkness 14:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to there being two articles, so long as they are clearly covering different things. bd2412 T 14:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that's easy enough to do. The 69th NY article should deal with the regiment during the Civil War and end when the regiment was mustered out of service. The 69th Infantry Regiment article could link back to that history as a lineage thing, but its history should start when it was organized in the National Guard (so World War I...possibly with some earlier stuff if there's good sourcing for it). Just my thoughts, though. Intothatdarkness 15:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Seeing that the regiment was renumbered at the outset of U.S. involvement in World War I as the 165th Infantry, it seems like an article on that unit should pick up the WWI and WWII history of the unit. My personal view is that Wikipedia articles should address the unit identities as separate articles except in cases in which they changed during a conflict (the final designation should indicate the article title in those cases). As already mentioned, U.S. Army unit lineages are so flexible as to embarrass a contortionist, and I would suggest the official lineages merit only a mention in unit articles. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Milestone reached...

Just to say that the Fortifications task force has reached a milestone, finally having 100 Good Articles under its wing as of today. This follows a strong year of work by the community on topics ranging from North American blockhouses, to Portuguese colonial forts and strangely named artillery towers in Norwich. Thanks to everyone on their work on this aspect of military history in 2013, and I look forward to another good year in 2014! Hchc2009 (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations! Having recently enjoyed reviewing a couple of your excellent castle GANs, Hchc, I'm happy to have played a small part in helping you guys achieve this milestone. Will make a note to mention in the next Bugle. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

My congrats too! Bloody good job. I look forward to the day when Operation Bora reaches those dizzying heights! At which point I might try for special project status... Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice work, everyone! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Help needed on the Refdesk - Query about Congreve rockets

Some expertise needed please for this question "Military quotation" on the Miscellaneous Reference Desk. A big thank you to all the editors from this project who have helped with various Refdesk queries in the past and Happy New Year to you all. Alansplodge (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Range of years in article titles

From WP:YEAR: "A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year, in which case the full closing year is given (1881–1986)." So, it would be proper to shorten the closing year in the following page titles, right?

• Siege of Middelburg (1572–1574)
• Siege of Steenwijk (1580–1581)
• Siege of Rheinberg (1586–1590)

Then they would be consistent with Siege of Acre (1189–91) and Siege of Algeciras (1342–44), or are those the ones that are wrong (if this project has decided to use the longer format)? My guess is that these articles got this way because the page creators were used to seeing the longer format in birth/death year ranges, where the closing year is not shortened (see WP:BORN). Chris the speller ^yack 17:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you'd be okay moving the articles to a shorter date format and redirecting the current titles to them, or just creating shorter titles with redirects, bearing in mind to use ndashes not hyphens in the date. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 18:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Not even sure why we need the year disamb, as there do not appear to any other sieges of those towns. Jim Sweeney (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Were there more than one battles of the above ? Bwmoll3 (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

No doubt the move would be okazay, as WP:YEAR specifies. But I agree with Jim, why the dates at all? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that the years should be written in full we are not short of space as they were some paper based encyclopaedias. The full date has been used for may years, at first because all years were linked, and I see no reason to change from four digits. This seems to me to be yet another example of where changes are decided in a guideline by a few editors and then treated as gospel afterwards. For example I went back 1000 edits to this version of the guideline with is from 13 August 2010. It said:

Year ranges, like all ranges, are separated by an en dash, not a hyphen or slash: 2005–06 is a two-year range, whereas 2005/06 is a period of twelve months or less such as a sports season or a financial year. A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year (1881–1986). The full closing year is acceptable, but abbreviating it to a single digit (1881–6) or three digits (1881–886) is not.

I doubt there was an RfC over the removal (24 September 2010) of "The full closing year is acceptable" and if there was I be it involved less than 20 editors.

At a practical level it is a bad idea to shorten years in date because it make it less likely that an internet search will return the Wikipedia page as the first hit if all that is known by the person searching is the end of the siege and the town name. -- PBS (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

But why the dates? What is the need for disambiguation in the first place? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

"Draft" rating

I suggest that this wikiproject implement the new "Draft"-class and categorize into Category: Draft-Class military history articles, for pages in the WP:Drafts namespace that was recently initiated. This would allow tracking of articles related to this wikiproject that are in draft form, which members of this wikiproject may wish to improve and move into the mainspace. -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware we had this new namespace, and personally I don't see its appeal.. we each have the ability to create an unlimited number of sandboxes to draft articles in, which seems more than suitable, the last thing I want to see a lot of attention being diverted towards a load of half-baked drafts by anon-IPs and treated in the same way as the B-class checklist category like a backlog that we should be keeping down rather than letting grow. Given that we already have peer-reviews, B-class assessments, A-class reviews, GA and FA reviews taking up a lot of resources, I think any Draft-class categories should only be created as low-priority lists for those who are interested, and not as a "work in progress" to be fussed over. For example, if by the end of 2014 it ends up with 100,000+ drafts that people have started but never really developed we should consider that their problem and not this projects to have to "manage" through drives. I gather drafts will auto-categorise themselves until they are moved into article space; that should be sufficient enough. I think we'll have a busy four years over the upcoming WWI centenary, I don't think we can afford to take on any major schemes revolving around making drafts our responsibility, but that said we can at least make the category quietly available to anyone who is interested in seeing what's brewing in case they want to lend a hand. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 02:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if the WPMILHIST banner adds a class-mask check for DRAFT, they will autocategorize. However, the category would still need to be created, otherwise it will be a redlink category. And ofcourse, people will need to add the banner to the talk page. No other work would need to be done. Those interested in improving some draft article with an intriguing name will have a category through which to peruse. (and possibly speedy delete some entries from) -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a sensible and uncontroversial change to me. It would provide a means of encouraging collaborations in draft articles, raising the profile of drafts and would contribute to better processing of articles created through whatever has replaced the AfC process. I note that this has the bonus feature of hiding these articles away from Google searches. Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

What would be the fundamental difference between a stub and draft? To me, the difference is that a draft article indicates work in progress, it is currently actively being worked on, while a stub is something more static. Is this what this new class indicates? Unless we provide good guidelines I find it more confusing than helpful. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm with MisterBee1966 in finding the purpose "drafts" confusing. My experience with MilHist has been that veteran members tend to dedicate a lot of time to their articles in sandboxes and don't publish them until they're ready for an ACR or even FAR, although some members go for a less stressful B-class or GAR release, which is still an excellent platform. Stubs tend to be made live in mainspace without much preparation and allowed to develop of their own accord and often begin as very low-quality and poorly sourced scraps of history. I agree we may need some basic procedures to follow with regards tagging and even deleting drafts, or we risk being overwhelmed by a heap of scrappy articles which are either started by people cheekily hoping we'll finish them off, or drafts that only repeat content found in existing articles that would be merged were they normal stubs. I think the coord team needs to discuss how drafts tagged as MilHist articles will be managed, if at all, so that we're all on the same page and not CSD'ing willy-nilly (if that's possible). Last thing we need are disputes over "non-articles" and it seems to me that WP:Drafts contains no advice or proper guidelines for editors and is a feature that has been rolled-out with poor support. I'm sure there is potential in identifying promising drafts and encouraging that articles be developed to a high-standard before publication, but we should be more clear on how WikiProjects should handle drafts. I'm also interested in knowing how "drafts" are patrolled or reviewed to prevent a massive backlog of nonsense forming on the servers. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 09:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I would consider a draft article in Draft space to be just like a draft article in a User space sandbox, except a bit more inviting for others to edit. bd2412 T 13:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I've often developed articles in my user space, but will probably use this system as a means of encouraging other editors to work on them with me. Having a project tag for this would be helpful. Nick-D (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm another in the confused category about drafts. Most articles I edit I would consider works in progress - perhaps because I see what I'm doing as contributing to their evolution rather than "publishing" them. I understand the idea that it could be used to deliberately encourage collective editing but would we set up an automatic system to remove draft tags a certain time after the last edit? Otherwise I can see us with a backlog of abandoned drafts, or something with the forlorn looking status of something with aging merge proposals. Monstrelet (talk) 10:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The DRAFT tag would be automatically set by the WPP banner, if the page exists in WP:Drafts-namespace. When a page is removed from [[Draft:]]-namespace, it would automatically get removed from the DRAFT-tagging. Drafts can always be deleted through WP:MFD or one of the qualifying WP:CSD criteria. -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 06:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

GAR

Winston Churchill, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Dana boomer (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

National subcategories of Category:World War II prisoners of war

Over at Category:World War II prisoners of war two new subcategories have recently appeared. These are Category:British World War II prisoners of war and Category:French prisoners of war in World War II. Now, I think having national subcategories for the prisoners is a very good idea, but I also think that a decision should be made as to how these categories should be named. Right now there are two different systems, "Nationality World War II prisoners of war" and "Nationality prisoners of war in World War II". Are either of these preferable? Manxruler (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

There is potential confusion between those captured by the nationality and those members of that nationality that were captured. Whatever solution is adopted should take this into account. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Concur, category titles should be more like "British people taken prisoner of war in World War II" to avoid confusion. W. B. Wilson (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Certainly, confusion should be avoided. Also, a clear distinction between civilian and military prisoners is necessary. Manxruler (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, civilian prisoners are interned. I think something like "British military personnel captured in World War II" and "Fooian military personnel captured by Britain in World War II" would be appropriately distinct. The civilian versions could be "British people interned in World War II" and "Fooian people interned by Britain in World War II" Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Any categories for civilian prisoners/internees would be subcategories of Category:World War II civilian prisoners (a category which description could also use some work). Presently the only subcategory of that category is Category:World War II civilian prisoners held by Japan. Manxruler (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

New program evaluation of contests released

Hi everyone. The Program Evaluation and Design team at the Wikimedia Foundation has released a new program evaluation about on-wiki writing contests. Thanks to everyone who shared data, and we hope you'll share with us in the future. You can read the report here:

• Program evaluation: on-wiki writing contests

I think you'll be proud of the results, we are! SarahStierch (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

NSA does not deny spying on members of Congress (Related to NSA which is relevant to the Intelligence task force)

• Fung, Brian. "The NSA refuses to deny spying on members of Congress." The Washington Post. January 4, 2014.

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Material and references should be added to relevant articles (or their talk pages), and not be posted on this busy and wide-ranging talk page. Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Then may I carve out a separate talk page for the intelligence task force? About article talk pages, it's possible that people don't watch talk pages of some of the articles this is relevant to (obviously almost nobody watches talk pages of the lesser trafficked articles). And while I do have time later to see where this can be added, not every editor does and some might do well to drive by and say "Hi, I found these sources!" In consideration of my comments, if you don't want them on this page, what project-related page would be the best place? WhisperToMe (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that it's normal practice on any projects to use their talk pages post links to news stories and other individual references. I'd suggest that you add the material to relevant articles, or post it on their talk pages. Nick-D (talk) 08:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Of the articles I know are relevant, I've posted this article to the talk pages. But there might be some article I don't know about that it might be relevant to. That's why I wanted the intelligence task force to take a look. While I didn't know of anyone before me who did this practice of "here are sources", I have done "here are sources" posts on some projects. In relation to the NSA stuff some other editors have done the same thing in places like Talk:Edward Snowden. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

WT:WikiProject Espionage has its own talk page. -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Espionage has its own talk page. The Intelligence task force of WP Military history does not have its own talk page and AFAIK it's still a separate project. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Use of the "flag" of the Mongol Empire

File:White Sulde of the Mongol Empire.jpg

The image in question

There are a large number of historical battle articles which use File:White Sulde of the Mongol Empire.jpg as the "flag" of the Mongol Empire within infoboxes. It is not a flag. Not only that, it has never been used as a "flag" in the sense of how Europeans used flags in antiquity, and how flags are used in the modern era. Why is this allowed? --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:MILMOS#FLAGS which states: "When dealing with items related to a particular time period, avoid using anachronistic flags from other time periods. Be especially careful to avoid using the flags of modern countries for ancient ones; in many cases, the proper successor of a country no longer in existence is a matter of considerable controversy." Ergo, if the "flag" being added to articles misrepresents a nation, remove them per that MOS guideline. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 10:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Is it actually being used as a flag in the wiki articles? I seem to recall that several kingdoms of the European Dark Ages are represented by a symbol, which isn't any kind of flag, just a way to fill the appropriate bit in an info box Monstrelet (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

This is what that picture is supposed to represent. It isn't a 2D flat image, but an actual picture of a physical object. For another image, see here.

For examples of how the file is used on Wikipedia, see Battle of Ngasaunggyan, Mongol invasion of Europe and List of wars involving Japan. I don't really see how a depiction of a group of eight piked ornaments should be used in the same manner as, say, the Union Jack. These pikes were essentially giant poles with fabric decorations coming off them, used to represent the advancing Mongol horde; it is these physical decorated poles that were used on the field to represent something, and a two-dimensional picture of them isn't the same thing as waving a national or army flag. --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

A few editors (and especially IP editors for some reason) are very thingy about having flags in infoboxes, and roam around adding flags or other symbols without any consideration about whether they're suitable or not (for instance, some articles on recent battles involving Somali pirates have had the pirates marked with little skull and cross bone flags!). I agree with Marcus' comment that where these aren't justified they should be removed as there isn't a need to have flags or equivalent symbols in infoboxes. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Currently the file is used on more than 100 pages, and many of them I believe are used inappropriately. Before I do anything about it, I'd just like to confirm that there is community consensus that the image shouldn't be used in infoboxes like how it is currently used. --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Any MOS – parent or project – is based on consensus, so you have it for granted. In your example Battle of Ngasaunggyan we see that Mongol Empire has that photo, Pagan Empire has none. It's a pretty lame representation, and I'd support its removal if you seek consensus further to the MILMOS. Go for it, if anyone plays games with you and reverts them raise it here and we can back you up. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 11:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

PS: I'd also advise that if you are going to remove the image from as many as 100+ pages, you leave a concise edit summary such as "Removed photo used to represent Mongol Empire per WP:MILMOS#FLAGS as it is inappropriate and not recommended". That helps us follow your removals also. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 11:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell)

Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell) is a painting series that has passed your A-Class review. I was about to nominate one of the paintings in the series, Freedom of Speech (painting), when I noticed this edit by Climie.ca to remove it from the project. There were similar edits ([2],[3] & [4]) for Freedom from Fear (painting), Freedom from Want (painting) & Freedom of Worship (painting). Does the removal of these works from the project represent the consensus of WP:MILHIST editors?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history#What topics do we cover?, "8: Depictions of military history in all media, such as video games, painting, sculpture, music, film, poetry, and prose." – If you feel these paintings qualify as depicting military history then they probably fall under our scope. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 04:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I also want to nominate Freedom of Worship for A-Class.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

They depict military history as our reasons to enter World War II although they are only thematic depictions. I am going to readd these to MILHIST.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How do these fall under the Military history WikiProject's scope? These aren't depictions of military history, these are paintings of regular citizens. Your explanation above is an extremely tenuous connection. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

In terms of Military History, they were integral to the Second War Bond Drive. I don't know if they classify as depictions of military history, but as the cornerstones of the Second War Bond Drive, they are part of military history.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I don't know what Hisotriography means, but do they fall under "Military historiography, publications, and historians." They were published illustrations used to boost morale.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is what FDR said about these paintings (From the Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell)): Roosevelt wrote to Rockwell "I think you have done a superb job in bringing home to the plain, everyday citizen the plain, everyday truths behind the Four Freedoms...I congratulate you not alone on the execution but also for the spirit which impelled you to make this contribution to the common cause of a freer, happier world". Roosevelt wrote to the Post "This is the first pictorial representation I have seen of the staunchly American values contained in the rights of free speech and free worship and our goals of freedom from fear and want." Roosevelt also wrote of the corresponding essays, "Their words should inspire all who read them with a deeper appreciation of the way of life we are striving to preserve."--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) By using that argument, you could say that thousands of articles should be added to our scope. Take rationing, for example. It's clearly related to military history, but that doesn't mean that it should be in our scope. With Four Freedoms, the fact that they were used to support the war effort in the Second World War does not mean that they fall under our scope. The paintings aren't a military publication, and if you had read our article on the subject, you would have realized that they do not qualify as historiography in any sense of that word.

What this falls under is criterion eight, which is quoted by Marcus above. The explanatory note attached to this criterion states that "We generally cover only those depictions for which a discussion of historical accuracy or real military influence is applicable." Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Do published illustrations to promote the war count as "publications" for the project?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

"Military publications" refers to books, articles, and other scholarly works on or about military history. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Do War bond drives fall under the project?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Note 4 goes on to say "However, songs and music with long military associations—for example, It's a long way to Tipperary and Lili Marleen—are within our scope." Do things that are so closely associated with the military (the association being their central role in the War Bond Drive) that they are exhibited in concert with the dedication of the National World War II Memorial fall under the note 4 exception?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I stumbled up on "Any Bonds Today?" which also seems like it should be tagged by the project as closely associated with the military.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

What you don't seem to understand is that this is a tenuous connection, one that Milhist doesn't consider strong enough to be under our scope. These are not paintings of military action, and their legacy is that of Roosevelt's human rights declarations, not the war bond drive. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

"Historiography" refers to the methods behind the study, presentation and application of history as a subject rather than history itself, so any media which depicts historical events generally won't fall under that category. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 04:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Generally, though the project has accepted media depictions of military actions so long as those military actions actually happened (not a made up war or anything). One film FA which falls within this project's scope is Pengkhianatan G30S/PKI. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Sure, but this isn't a media depiction of a military action, Crisco. The four images are all non-free of I would have displayed them here. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Wasn't talking about the Four Freedoms (I agree with you guys there). Just replying to point out that WP:MILHIST isn't quite "pure" historiography, by consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)